moduspwnens14

Definitely one of Claude's load-bearing terms.

Cheating (at least when I was school age) was fairly rare and not terribly difficult to detect. My concern is that both of those might be false with LLMs, and that'd make the circumstances different.

I agree. That's what I expect.

My optimistic hope is that for the more basic skills, teachers can adjust grading so that more easily-cheated homework provides less credit, and in-person work (such as a pop quiz) is weighed more heavily. Then, you're effectively setting yourself a time bomb by using LLMs on homework to avoid learning the material.

For higher-level skills, I think using LLMs will probably just become another skillset and part of the toolbox, just like the Internet was for my generation. But I guess we'll see.

That seems to be a common theme in the responses to me here.

The teachers set the course material and grading standards at least partially on how well the students are performing. Maybe not for a given class or year, but certainly over time. Scholarships are competitive. Slots in higher level courses are competitive, and often (at least partially) based on grades.

Can you imagine that the coursework and education overall might, over time, look quite different if half or more of students are regularly using LLMs, without explicitly disclosing it?

My daughter is only 1 and a half years old now, but my concern is more that she'll be implicitly competing with classmates that are using tools like this, whether we allow her to use them or not.

Locking semantics? Consistent listing of large numbers of files?

I'm speculating but those are at least the two I can think of that aren't explicitly linked to speed equivalency of a basic filesystem.

I tried out YNAB, Rocket Money, and Quicken Simplifi.

YNAB was a bit too opinionated and "hands on" for my tastes. Rocket Money seemed to be geared toward the "we'll cancel subscriptions for you" use case and was otherwise not configurable enough.

Quicken Simplifi seems much closer as a spiritual successor to Mint. It's mostly hands-off, though you can set up configurable rules and budgets. And it worked with all of my accounts.

Lambda has provisioned capacity now. You can just tell it how many to keep warm and it'll keep that many warm (but still cold start additionally as necessary).

This is exactly how we see it at my company.

Likewise, Linux is also a confusing mess of different parts and nonsensical abstractions when you first approach it. It does take some time to understand how to use it, and in particular how to do effective troubleshooting when things aren't working the way you expect.

But I 100% agree--I think it's the new Linux. In 5-10 years, it'll be the "go to", if not sooner.

Does it do U2F on an iOS device?

If you haven't learned Kubernetes yet, it's probably a good use case for that.

Then use any of the other ideas here, except deploy them through Kubernetes.

My apologies if that's how it came across. My intention was to support the parent comment's assertion by pointing to a live example supporting his claim.

Honestly we already discussed this when Marzipan was announced. I guess the news here is just the years they're targeting? Regardless, a lot of the comments here are worried about what the headline implies, which is much more sinister than "a fast and clean way to make an iOS-focused UI app also work on the Mac." And there are already live examples on macOS that actually work fairly well!

Yes, and we are already seeing it. The "Home" app on macOS right now is clearly reusing a lot of iOS UI elements. It works, although it's tough to imagine a more native Mac app wouldn't be a better UX.

I think there's probably a case to be made when the app you're building is "mobile first," so you (as the developer) inherently do not want a richer, more feature-filled UI on the desktop. In that case, there's value in having a single UI to maintain and for that UI to be familiar to the user in both places.

Sure--I've no doubt there's some ugly workaround process to get around it, but I felt compelled to offer more information because it is usually the case that any Mac App Store app can be distributed outside the App Store relatively easily, except those that use the Network Extension framework.

I wanted to be sure the dev here is backed up that he's not making this up--this is Apple's restriction and not his.

> A much easier alternative is to have a dev account, then you can just enable the entitlements in your provisioning profile for your dev devices (or personal devices). Most entitlements don’t require any approval for a dev profile.

Yes, this is how we test on our own Macs before publishing to the app store. Although iirc those signatures have expiration timestamps, so you'll be re-signing and redistributing on some tedious interval (something like 30-90 days).